I have consistently argued that the biggest impediments to building a functional Libertarian Party in Delaware (or the United States) are the failure--even the disinterest--of Libertarians on a national basis in building a real political party from the ground up, and the failure to delineate a vision that will bring people into the fold.
Now the national Libertarian Party is engaged in what friends might call soul-searching and critics would probably label fratricidal warfare over its very identity.
There is now a Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, with THREE different listservs (1, 2, 3) supporting the debate "to facilitate development of strategy and the accomplishing of specific tasks to strengthen the Libertarian Party as a radical political party."
Now I have to admit that (A) nothing is as trivially amusing as watching a minor political party self-destruct, and (B) when I think "radical political party" I generally think socialists, not free-market advocates. But hey, that's just me.
There's a group called "Restore '04" that believes that somebody really cares about whether the Libertarian Party uses the 2004 or the 2006 party platforms. I don't know anybody in, for example, the Delaware Democratic or Republican parties necessarily even knows what's in the national platforms during the 75% of the years when there is no presidential election. Yawn.
There's also the "world's smallest political program" offered by Libertarian Tom Knapp:
It's succinct, it's catchy, and it is ultimately a loser. It is an absolutist ideological statement that no one--even if he or she ever got elected to anything, it would be impossible to govern anything.
Finally, there is the Libertarian Reform Caucus, which I have joined and have come to believe represents possibly the best chance to turn the national party into a real political party.
This is as yet a small group (several hundred nationally, and--with me--four members in Delaware), but one with a strong message:
What the hell does that mean in Delaware?
It means we need to build a movement for greater personal and economic freedom in Delaware that becomes a comfortable home for people like Alan, Brian, and Duffy (my more regular big-L Libertarian posters) as well as smaller-L libertarians like Tyler Nixon and Shirley Vandever. And me, oh yeah--and me.
Now the national Libertarian Party is engaged in what friends might call soul-searching and critics would probably label fratricidal warfare over its very identity.
There is now a Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, with THREE different listservs (1, 2, 3) supporting the debate "to facilitate development of strategy and the accomplishing of specific tasks to strengthen the Libertarian Party as a radical political party."
Now I have to admit that (A) nothing is as trivially amusing as watching a minor political party self-destruct, and (B) when I think "radical political party" I generally think socialists, not free-market advocates. But hey, that's just me.
There's a group called "Restore '04" that believes that somebody really cares about whether the Libertarian Party uses the 2004 or the 2006 party platforms. I don't know anybody in, for example, the Delaware Democratic or Republican parties necessarily even knows what's in the national platforms during the 75% of the years when there is no presidential election. Yawn.
There's also the "world's smallest political program" offered by Libertarian Tom Knapp:
"The Libertarian Party supports reducing the size, scope and power of government at all levels and on all issues, and opposes increasing the size, scope or power of government at any level or for any purpose."
It's succinct, it's catchy, and it is ultimately a loser. It is an absolutist ideological statement that no one--even if he or she ever got elected to anything, it would be impossible to govern anything.
Finally, there is the Libertarian Reform Caucus, which I have joined and have come to believe represents possibly the best chance to turn the national party into a real political party.
This is as yet a small group (several hundred nationally, and--with me--four members in Delaware), but one with a strong message:
We are:
Libertarian Party members who have grown tired of losing.
Former Libertarian Party members who got tired and left -- but are considering returning if conditions improve.
Small-l libertarians who are considering joining the party if the party shows real interest in winning.
Small-l libertarians who are considering joining the party if the party backs off from some unacceptable positions.
Moderate libertarians who want to shrink government.
Radical libertarians who realize that to shrink government a lot, we must first shrink it a little.
Anarcho-capitalists who realize that to eliminate government, we must first shrink it.
If any of these fit you, consider joining us. Please read about our plan of action and see if you would like to participate.
We are not:
Hegelians who think things must get worse before they get better.
Libertarians willing to wait for the United States to collapse into bankruptcy or fascism.
Libertarians more interested in "being right" than getting things done.
Perfectionists, who would rather do nothing than do the imperfect.
We believe:
That an American political party needs a broad base of support.
That concessions to the popular will are necessary.
That the order in which government programs are eliminated is important.
That the biggest factor holding the Libertarian Party back is a platform that is excessively radical and does not set priorities.
We do not believe:
That the problem is merely one of salesmanship (often incorrectly referred to as "marketing").
That all we need is more money or publicity (though these are good things).
That all we need is the correct party organization (though this is also a good thing).
What the hell does that mean in Delaware?
It means we need to build a movement for greater personal and economic freedom in Delaware that becomes a comfortable home for people like Alan, Brian, and Duffy (my more regular big-L Libertarian posters) as well as smaller-L libertarians like Tyler Nixon and Shirley Vandever. And me, oh yeah--and me.
Comments
Anyway, on the topic. There's a phrase I have to borrow from my Step-Mother's Swedish heritage coffee mug.
"You can always tell a Libertarian, but you can't tell him much."
The one major criticism I've heard about Libertarians is that there is constant squabble within the party as to how to move forward. They're right. We're like a bunch of lost back-seat drivers arguing over a fold out map, and like both of the other parties right now, we need a motivational figurehead to join us together.
Our problem is that our guy is playing on the other team, and that's tearing us apart. It's bringing much needed publicity to the ideals we share, but with a different brand name.
Where we, as a party, are faltering is that we need to capitalize on his brand recognition, capitalize on the dissatisfaction with the establishment that is brewing under the lid, and bring that energy into our corner to establish us as the answer, the solution to the ills of the current corrupt political system.
We need to point to those in power, and point to the failures of the system, then point to our leader, and paint him as a cure for the problem.
Here's the way: We do this on a local level, and start upward. Heck with the national system, and start with school boards, town positions, even the local dog catcher (which, back in my MA hometown, is still an elected position).
We start small, grow respect for being the party of the people, the voice of the people, on the local town level. Pick apart the incumbents' flaws using libertarian values. Be loud, be passionate, be abrasive, be noticed, be persistent.
It'll take time, and energy, and it'll take very little money. A couple hundred for yard signs maybe, but alot of legwork. Look at Iowa, New Hampshire... they're going to as many places and talking to as many people as possible to spread their message. Our candidates need to due the same. Hit the bingo nights and fire hall dinners, talk to the people, nicely, about what is going wrong and what you intend to do to fix it. We need candidates to set the direction locally, to be adopted nationally.
As an aside, I am very active both locally and nationally in biker rights. They say that getting a group of bikers to agree on something is like herding cats. The same may be said of libertarians.
I see the Libertarian Reform Caucus as a way to address this. Libertarians, and dare I say bikers, are by their very definition independent and opinionated. We need to stick to the opinions that really matter.
Everything else is B.S.